/lit/ - Literature

>>19446687
>Isn't it funny how Fukuyama was so laughed at by the leftist (and rightist) crowd for the End of History
What do you mean? 'The End of History?' is one of the most widely cited papers in international relations and political science as a whole, and Fukuyama was held in high esteem as one of the few predictors to the fall of the USSR and a leading figure in liberal internationalism, which only started to fall out of favour from ~2001-2003. He was hardly 'so laughed at' and his more contemporary work (Political Order series) is generally well received. He is still taught in introductory International Relations courses to this day. He doesn't have the prestige he once had, but he isn't the academic outsider and figure of ridicule you paint him as either.
And, too many people when they raise this topic focus on the final conclusion of his thesis and ignore the (poor) philosophy he engages in to reach it. Reasons are as important as conclusions. But i doubt many who make these threads agree that the story of human society is the story of the struggle for recognition between masters and slaves, that all great political upheavals are fundamentally reflections this engine of history, and that liberal democracy+market capitalism is final cause of a grand political telos. And convincing supporting evidence for this very strong claim is that Liberalism overthrew monarchism, then Fascism was defeated in WWII, and Communism collapsed in the early 90s. But completely ignores just how contingent all these events were, the cases that don't follow his predictions, and all the possible causes for them other than his very specific pet psychological determination he advocates. It's bad philosophy, It's bad history, and it's bad political science. It's from these premises that his conclusion obtains, so if you're defending the conclusion of the end of history, you're defending all this too.
A week may be a long time in politics, but in terms of substantial societal change three decades is the blink of an eye. The paroxysm of the 20th Century was two in the making, the of the 18th arguably seven. Old Kingdom Egypt and Sumeria existed in a practical stasis for hundreds if not thousands of years. Society has a great deal of inertia, and even the seeds of change that may be occurring right now might not bloom for decades or even centuries more, and in hindsight this may be seen as a very eventful time. The view that little has happened in three decades is somehow exceptional in human history is myopic—If anything, that the 70 years preceding it were so eventful is what is exceptional.
>there decades where nothing happens, and there are weeks where decades happen

>>16631036
>Ax. 1. if phi is a P and necessarily for all x, if x is phi then phi is psy, then psy is a P
>Ax. 2. 'not psy' is a P if and only if not 'psy is a P'
>Th. 1. if phi is a P then possible there exists an x such that x is a phi
>Df. 1. x is a G if and only if for all phi, if phi is a P then x is a phi
>AX. 3. G is a P
>Th. 2. possibly there exists an x and x is G
>Df. 2. phi is essentially(?) x if and only if x is a phi and for all psy, if x is a psy then necessarily for all y, if y is a phi then y is a psy
>Ax. 4. if phi is a P then necessarily phi is a P
>Th. 3. if x is a G then G is essentially(?) x
>Df. 3. x is an E if and only if, for all phi, if phi is essentially x then necessarily there exists a y and y is a phi
>Ax. 5. E is a P
>Th. 4. necessarily there exists and x and x is a G
I think, but my proposition/first order logic is shit. Presumably G is God, but G knows what the phi, psy, P and E are supposed to be. Or what the 'ess' is.

>>16546727
Don't (you) me ever again.

>>16545811
Mate, Hobbes was dead before Rousseau was even born.

>>16531768
>what the fuck are you even talking about you fucking retard? WTF does trannies or niggers bitching on twitter have to do with anything? I talking about the massive harassment I'm experiencing, they are even deleting or corrupting files that hold my work. They break programs to stop me from making visual or writing shit. They were just literally editing my text in real-time.

>>16524923
>>16524947
>>16524956
So GDP calculations don't take into account national debt? It doesn't seem to be voodoo so much as too bounded an equation.